A Question for Believers

[Cail]

So are you saying that even though the Bible specifically names the Jews "God's Chosen People", the only way they'll get into Heaven is by accepting Christ as the Savior (which amounts to converting to Christianity)?

Nah, I don't buy that for a second.

Edit-Let me ask you this. How did people get into Heaven prior to the coming of Christ?

[SalotHSaR]

NOTE: Arguments for hell being temporary.

Matthew 10:28 (New International Version)
28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12:4-5 (New International Version)
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

NOTE: So is it possible then that this fire can burn a soul away? So that a Hitler will burn slower than say, my dad who never accepted Christ? So that there is a fair justice? Or is my understanding of this completely wrong because it isn’t about justice at all?

I don't see how these argue for temporary. I thought Jesus was saying to not worry about earthly trials, such as physical death, when your standing before God, who handles your soul, is much more important. Where does a temporary hell come in? Also, its tough for us to use the word "justice", b/c ours is much different than God's.

I viewed the passages as God can destroy both the body & the soul, as in utterly destroy with permanent fire, as in all gone and no more. But you could be right.

The first sin directly after the fall is outright murder when Cain kills his own brother out of jealousy and envy because of his brother’s close relationship with God. That’s the first thing that is mentioned after the fall.

I don't believe so. First off, we know the first sin is the Fall itself, Adam choosing Eve over God. He also tried to blame Eve before God, rather than take responsibility. They both tried to hide their guilt. So, Abel's murder wasn't the first.

I consider that all part of the fall section. However, you could say that Cain's pitiful little sacrifice was a sin, or that Cain's jealousy and envy was sin. But when I read it, I only see him as depressed, then suddenly he kills his brother. BAM! just like that. It's pretty interesting because murder is huge in our eyes. I found it to be sort of like the raping of Lena. It just stands way out there. We expect little crimes at first and then there's THIS! It's just unexpected.

[SalotHSaR]

So are you saying that even though the Bible specifically names the Jews "God's Chosen People", the only way they'll get into Heaven is by accepting Christ as the Savior (which amounts to converting to Christianity)?

Nah, I don't buy that for a second.

Edit-Let me ask you this. How did people get into Heaven prior to the coming of Christ?

They believed in the coming savior. That's what animal sacrifice was all about. Everything in the Bible points to Christ.

[SalotHSaR]

I officially open this to all & thank everyone for their patience. I have much to think about

[Cail]

Good point.

I dunno, I just don't like the idea that Christianity is "right" and every other religion is "wrong", especially those who do believe in a God, and even more especially so, the Jews.

[The Laughing Man]

Santa Claus indeed. Easter bunny.... Do you think that my Lord made these things or do you recognize these deceptions are done by some other part of the face of reality to corrupt society and make foolish those thing that are real and hidden?

What other "part of the face of reality" do you refer to? God is the creator of all things, isn't he? God created Satan, as he also created "demons", demons that then proceed to torment His Only Son? Or do you seek to say that God and Satan were created by something "else", and the Universe is the expression of those opposing forces? I may have mistaken your statement as to this being a question for all believers, when it seems you were asking for clarification from other believers in Christ. If true, I apologize for intruding here.

I have only this to say about your insistence on taking the word of men, who claim to speak for God, as the word of God Itself; they are words! They are between 2000 -5000 yrs old, and the ACTUAL MEANING of those words is unavailable to you, because the only definitions available to you for these "ancient" words are your current ones. You cannot determine the meaning of an entire statement, or collection of statements, using current defintions for ancient words that had different meanings at the time,meanings only the speakers of those statements knew at the time they spoke them. For example, lets take that "special" word, DEMON. It is an ancient Greek word, and last I checked, the majority of the Bible was translated from Greek. A common usage, or definition, at that time, of the word "demon" was "Teacher". To a Greek philosopher, many things can "teach" in many ways, they say things like "The river teaches patience", etc, so on and so forth. Now, the river is not a "teacher" in the sense that we know it today, but the statement implies that we can "learn" from observing, or "knowing" the river, and it is in this way that it "teaches". A "demon" can be considered "lust". The lust attacks us, as a demon, and either "teaches" us to DENY, or resist, lust, and learn the ways of purity of spirit and seek to know God, or Jesus, as you prefer, or to give in to lust, and learn the ways of self indulgence, or ignorance of God in favor of knowledge of the "body", or "sins of the flesh". We have no such definition for demon in our current vocabulary, so therefore we are naturally disadvantaged to determine what the words mean. So the obvious "error" here is to take the words of the Bible "literally" here and now today, when the words contained within it hold the meanings of words which were spoken by men who lived thousands of years ago, and only they, NOT you, can determine what the collective meaning of all their statements could possibly be. My "advice" to you, if you truly wish to learn the word of God, FROM the Bible, is to learn the Ancient Greek language, in the classical and conversational sense, that you may be better prepared to interpret the statements made about Hell, and better determine, as accurately as possible, for your very soul ultimately depends its accuracy and legitimacy, of your interpretations , and the interpretations of Greek itself in the Bible, of some ancient mens statements about their perceptions and knowledge of God, using words and contexts that you don't "currently" know the meaning of.

[SalotHSaR]

I think I said somewhere that I look up the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic when I research. And generally, whenever I do said research the words mean what the English words suggest they do. However sometimes there's some more to it than only that. It could be that a certain word is possessive or usually past tense. But for the most part, what's there is pretty accurate.

I spend a fair amount of time in the Bible and researching the words in their original languages, so I should know.

[Prebe]

Cybrweez: So, every Jew should have converted to Christianity to get tickets to heaven? For those who didn't it's just tough luck?

[Avatar]

First, SalotHSaR, thanks for opening this up to us non-believers. (And for participating in the other thread as well. )

Prebe, isn't that the foundation of christianity? Isn't that what the very essence of the religion is? Isn't that where it's very name comes from?

The way that I've always seen it, and the way that by far the majority of people seem to see it, is that if you accept christ as your "saviour" then your sins are forgiven and you get to go to heaven. That seems to me to be the whole point of christianity.

Cyberweez-- Which version of the bible? While they may all seem to agree in principle, the little details are clearly different. You know it's accurate? Which one? Certainly you won't deny many mistranslations at the very least? One of which at least was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents.

Oh, Salothsar, the idea of sacrifice for salvation is scarcely original to christianity or Judaism. Just as an example, the Mithraic religion, (of Persian origin I think, but which later took hold of much of the Roman army at least), shared many of the characteristics that christianity adopted. Including the death of a deific figure to ensure the rebirth of the world.

That's all. For now. (Except that I can't help noticing that some of the folks I pointed the thread out to chose not to say anything. (Not that it matters, it's up to you all. I just thought you'd have a valuable contribution to make. )

--A

[The Laughing Man]

I think I said somewhere that I look up the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic when I research. And generally, whenever I do said research the words mean what the English words suggest they do. However sometimes there's some more to it than only that. It could be that a certain word is possessive or usually past tense. But for the most part, what's there is pretty accurate.

I spend a fair amount of time in the Bible and researching the words in their original languages, so I should know.

Yes, but my point is, gently, that unless you can talk to the people who said those things, you can't possibly know what they meant. This is just as true today as it was then. Only they can provide context to the words, without which they are basically meaningless. You can't tell me can sit down with an ancient figure in the Bible and not have to have him explain what he "meant" during a simple conversation about the weather?

[Prebe]

Prebe, isn't that the foundation of christianity? Isn't that what the very essence of the religion is? Isn't that where it's very name comes from?

I don't know. That's why I'm asking Cybrweez.

[Avatar]

Think he's the wrong person to ask. He seems to see it that way.

Esmer, I think I see what you're saying. Regardles of the translation, the intent doesn't necessarily come through. The "sub-text" if you will?

--A

[Prebe]

I know Av. I just wanted confirmation.

So the good you do for others on earth does not extend to letting them into paradise, because they do not believe?

[Avatar]

Got it in one, I guess.

--A

[SalotHSaR]

I think I said somewhere that I look up the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic when I research. And generally, whenever I do said research the words mean what the English words suggest they do. However sometimes there's some more to it than only that. It could be that a certain word is possessive or usually past tense. But for the most part, what's there is pretty accurate.

I spend a fair amount of time in the Bible and researching the words in their original languages, so I should know.

Yes, but my point is, gently, that unless you can talk to the people who said those things, you can't possibly know what they meant. This is just as true today as it was then. Only they can provide context to the words, without which they are basically meaningless. You can't tell me can sit down with an ancient figure in the Bible and not have to have him explain what he "meant" during a simple conversation about the weather?

I just don't like your avatar.

Well, I can admit that you have a point, but wouldn't that be true about any ancient civilization? How can we know so much about the Romans if we can't understand the language of the day?

[ur-bane]

I know Av. I just wanted confirmation.

So the good you do for others on earth does not extend to letting them into paradise, because they do not believe?

Not only that Prebe, but the good you do unto others does not extend to letting you into paradise unless you have also accepted Christ as your savior.

When it comes to Christianity, actions do not speak louder than words. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" loses its meaning if you have not first accepted Christ as God.
And that turns me off. I cannot believe that my deeds are meaningless if I have not done them in god's name. That's bs to me.

[Prebe]

Sounds about right Ur-bane

[Cybrweez]

Cail, what's wrong w/a right and wrong? If God says this is the way it is, and someone else says it should be that way, they are wrong. Can the clay say to the potter I should be a bowl?

Also, came across some passages about the Israelites, in 1 Cor 9:20 and Romans 9-11. Paul talks about saving the Jews. What's the need if they are guaranteed? And being a Jew, he would know, and being a Pharisee, he would really know.

Av, you did do a good job of staying out, unlike Prebe.

So the good you do for others on earth does not extend to letting them into paradise, because they do not believe?

Prebe, and ur-bane, what is good? Good according to Prebe? What is good according to God? If you are good according to God, you'll get into heaven. But that good is perfect. Your good is a MUCH lower standard. Maybe you mean as long as good outweighs bad? A works based system? That's what man loves, to earn his keep. That's what every religion teaches, except Christianity and even Judaism. God chose Abraham b/c of his faith, not b/c of anything he did. The guy tried to tell a king his wife was his sister so they wouldn't hurt him.

[Cail]

There's nothing wrong with right and wrong. I just think that there's enough similarities in most monotheistic religions that it's possible that they're all right.

[Nathan]

Can the clay say to the potter I should be a bowl?

No, but only because the clay can't talk in the first place.